Toward a restorative justice pedagogy: reflections on teaching restorative justice in correctional facilities

Restorative justice is currently practiced in a variety of ways inside correctional facilities. One such way is the facilitation of restorative justice education. If grounded in restorative values, such education can contribute to outcomes similar to other restorative practices, such as victim offender dialogue. These outcomes include opportunities to speak to personal experiences, personal change, and growth, and a desire to engage in positive relationships and give back to the community. This paper draws on the teaching and facilitation experiences of the author and incarcerated peer facilitators to develop a restorative justice pedagogy. This pedagogy, based on restorative values, aims to inspire individual and social transformation; build community among participants; give voice to the unique experiences of participants; offer opportunities for real-life problem solving; provide a creative learning environment that is co-created by students and facilitators; view students as practitioners, theorists, and educators; and invite instructors to view themselves as students and share in the learning process. Implications of the restorative justice pedagogy for teaching outside the prison context and with course material other than restorative justice conclude the article.     

恢复性司法的价值与理念——报应性司法和恢复性司法比较研究

犯罪包含着犯罪人与受害方，犯罪人与社会及其国家之间的衔突。报应性司法采用形而上的哲学方法分析犯罪原因，认为犯罪是犯罪人自由选择的结果，犯罪所侵害的主要是国家的统治秩序，因此，在“以怨报怨”观念支配下，主张犯罪人承担刑罚这样的抽象责任。恢复性司法以实证的方法研究犯罪，认为犯罪是社区关系失调的产物，犯罪侵害的不仅是国家利益，还包括被害人利益和社区利益，因此，在“以直报怨”观念支配下，主张犯罪人要面对受害方承担道歉、赔偿等具体责任。     

恢复性司法与我国和谐社会建设

恢复性司法是指由受害人、违法者及其他可能受犯罪行为影响的个人或者社区成员积极参与刑事事务的解决的任何程序.恢复性司法理念有利于我们的和谐社会建设,在我国适用恢复性司法存在着有利的群众基础、政策支持、组织保证和实践经验.     

The emergence of restorative justice in Sri Lanka: a review essay

Within the framework of retributive justice, crime is understood as an offence against the State and is defined as a violation of law. It represents the punitive approach of reaction to crime, where the offenders are considered as an unwanted group who should be punished. However, with the development of criminology, offenders are identified as the persons needing rehabilitation and reintegration into the society as law abiding citizens. This novel thinking has paved the way to the establishment of the concept of restorative justice where crime is understood to be an infringement on man and human relationship. It involves reintegration of both the offender and victim within the community. The restorative justice principle could be found in community service orders, probation, parole, and other noncustodial measures as alternatives to the traditional incarceration, victim offender mediation, sentencing, peacemaking and healing circles, police cautions, and active participation of victims in the criminal justice process, and so on. This article evaluates Sri Lanka's transformation from retributive justice to restorative justice by incorporating the above-mentioned means and methods to the criminal justice system. Further, it examines how these innovations have affected the crime rate in Sri Lanka.     

Effectiveness of the Restorative Justice Process on Crime Victims and Adult Offenders in Thailand

In this paper, the researchers draw on research findings of the restorative justice process for adult offenders in Thailand run by probation officers during the pre-investigation stage. The evaluation study was conducted in 2009, aiming to analyze the effect of restorative justice on victims and offenders. The researchers investigate various key aspects, such as rates of satisfaction and perception of fairness, changing attitudes of victims and offenders, response to the victim’s needs, offender’s accountability, and reoffending rate. Factors associated with these aspects were also analyzed. A quasi-experimental research design was applied and the research findings showed that victims and offenders participating in the restorative justice process were significantly more satisfied with almost all evaluated outcomes than those who did not. However, the study did not find any significant difference in the re-offending rate between offenders in the experimental and comparison groups. Finally, the study found that two factors, i.e. victim’s income and victim–offender relationship, significantly related to the victim’s satisfaction. Victims who had low income were more likely to be satisfied with the outcome than those who had high income and victims who previously knew the offender were more likely to be satisfied with the process than those who did not.     

Contesting policy that undermines restorative justice for victims of crime☆

A policy provision in the Criminal Victim Assistance Program in British Columbia excludes the offender from participating in restorative justice approaches with the victim (and other affected parties) during counseling. A historical analysis of victim responses to crime shows that the victim experience to crime is socially constructed. In this regard, this policy act that excludes offenders from the victim healing process is consistent with a traditional approach to justice, which understands the offender to have committed a crime against the state, not the victim; however, separating the offender from the healing process is problematic within a restorative framework of justice where relationality is a central premise. Using a restorative lens, this policy act is contrary to an accompanying statute that has explicit provisions for counseling support for crime victims, as well as other statutes that provide for restorative responses to crime in Canada. The way we counsel and support victims from the harms created by crime cannot be separated from our view of justice.     

“And focused upon victims’ needs”: towards an assessment of the victim-friendly principles of restorative justice practice

Scholars and policy-makers typically laud restorative justice as being ‘victim-friendly’ in its rules and practices. High levels of victim satisfaction with its outcomes are put forward to substantiate this claim. However, there has been little research that engages with the constitutive role of restorative justice in shaping conceptions of identities, practices and needs. To address this gap, this article develops an analytic framework through which to assess the victim-friendly approach of restorative justice processes across social and legal contexts. In so doing, it engages with three key elements of restorative justice processes: firstly, how this justice approach conceives victims; secondly, how it shapes its practices (and not just outcomes) to address their concerns; and thirdly, how it responds to individual needs. The paper argues that engagement with the constitutive processes can bring a fresh perspective to the relationship between victims and restorative justice.     

恢复性司法对我国刑事诉讼制度的影响

恢复性司法是一种不同于传统司法模式的新型司法模式,它寻求尽可能利用罪犯、受害者和社区的积极和自愿参与的方式,恢复受犯罪影响的所有当事方的一切权益。我国引入恢复性司法既具有刑事司法实践、刑事观念、刑事制度和社会发展的基础,也与我国当前的刑事诉讼制度存在一定冲突。恢复性司法实践与理念对我国刑事诉讼可能产生的影响,突出表现在刑事观念、诉讼制度和检察机关法律监督方式等诸多方面。     

Restoring the Victim: Emotional Reactions, Justice Beliefs, and Support for Reparation and Punishment

Psychological responses to criminal wrongdoing have primarily focused on the offender, particularly on how (and why) offender punishment satisfies people’s need for justice. However, the restoration of the victim presents another way in which the “psychological itch” that injustice creates can be addressed. In the present article, I discuss two lay theories of how crime victims can be restored: a belief that the harm caused to crime victims should be directly repaired (a restorative justice approach) versus a belief that victim harm should be addressed via the punishment of the offender (a retributive justice approach). These two lay theories are discussed with regard to their emotional and ideological determinants, as well as situational and chronic factors that can affect whether people adopt a reparative or punitive “justice mindset” in dealing with victim concerns (and crime in general).     

A victim-centered approach to justice? Victim satisfaction effects on third-party punishments

Three studies investigated whether victims' satisfaction with a restorative justice process influenced third-party assignments of punishment. Participants evaluated criminal offenses and victims' reactions to an initial restorative justice conference, and were later asked to indicate their support for additional punishment of the offender. Across the three studies, we found that victim satisfaction (relative to dissatisfaction) attenuates people's desire to seek offender punishment, regardless of offense severity (Study 2) or conflicting reports from a third-party observer (Study 3). This relationship was explained by the informational value of victim satisfaction: Participants inferred that victims felt closure and that offenders experienced value reform, both of which elevated participants' satisfaction with the restorative justice outcome. The informational value communicated by victim satisfaction, and its criminal justice implications, are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

Revisiting Informal Justice: Restorative Justice and Democratic Professionalism

Restorative justice is a form of informal justice growing rapidly among criminal justice practitioners. It decenters the focus of criminal justice from the offender breaking a law of the state to the harm caused the victim and community. Resolution is said to come from offenders taking responsibility and making amends for the harm done and from communities supporting the victim and providing offenders with opportunities and skills to reintegrate as contributing members.
Restorative justice theory largely ignores the role of professionals in the criminal justice process, and yet professionals have played a dominant part in initiating many restorative justice programs. Several theoretical traditions recognize professionals as being important intermediaries between citizens and the state. The theory of democratic professionalism argues that professionals can play crucial roles in increasing and improving democratic participation in public affairs. This article examines two functioning restorative justice programs to flesh out what democratic professionalism might look like in operation—what tasks professionals perform and what citizen involvement means to the professionals. We argue that restorative justice cannot get along without professionals and that democratic professionalism may help restorative justice to avoid some of the problems associated with other approaches to informal justice by increasing true community participation but balancing it with concern for individuals' rights.     

Restorative justice in prisons

Restorative justice (RJ) has found significant utility outside the prison setting. For many reasons, it has not received the same level of consideration inside the institution. While not every case can, or perhaps should be considered for restorative justice processing inside the prison, some could easily fall into the broad purview range of restorative and transformative justice. We provide examples of RJ practices that exist in some prisons focusing on: offending behavior and victim awareness programs, community service work, and victim‐offender mediation, as well as prison systems that exhibit a RJ philosophy. Also considered are the effectiveness of prison RJ practices, and the limitations of such efforts. Although RJ has the potential to have a positive impact on the work of prisons and the experience of imprisonment, it has not found wide acceptance and is currently limited to a relatively small number of prisons and then often only delivered in partial form. We believe that RJ has a realistic future in prison settings and that the contradictions that may be identified are not debilitating.     

REDUCING INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE: AN EVALUATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE JUSTICE SYSTEM‐COMMUNITY COLLABORATION*

Research Summary In 1999, three communities were selected to participate in a research demonstration designed to test the feasibility and impact of a coordinated response to intimate partner violence that involved the courts and justice agencies in a central role. The primary goals of the Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) were to increase victim safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce repeat offending using coordinated community services and integrated justice system policies in intimate partner violence court cases. The partnerships differed from earlier coordinated community responses to domestic violence by placing special focus on the role of the court, specifically the judge, to facilitate offender accountability in collaboration with both nonprofit service providers and other criminal justice agencies. This article presents the results of an impact evaluation of this demonstration in all sites. The demonstration received mostly positive responses from justice system agencies, service providers, offenders, and victims. Improvements were made in offender monitoring, consistent sanctioning, and increased supervision. However, these changes did not translate into gains in victim perceptions of their safety or into reductions in repeat violence in all sites. Policy Implications The demonstration had minimal impact on changing offender attitudes and behavior. The mixed results of the evaluation indicate that the most effective justice system responses to intimate partner violence must include a focus on protecting victims, close monitoring of offenders, and rapid responses with penalties when violations of court‐ordered conditions are detected. Indications were found that JOD strategies were effective for some subgroups, including younger offenders with fewer ties to the victim and offenders with extensive arrest histories. The observed reductions in intimate partner violence in selected subgroups in the JOD sites may suggest a fruitful way to begin designing new intervention strategies, including prevention programs for men and women.     

Fictions of Restorative Justice,Vincent Geeraets

In this paper, I argue that scholars such as John Braithwaite and Lode Walgrave rely on fictions when presenting their utopian vision of restorative justice. Three claims in particular are shown to be fictitious. Proponents of restorative justice maintain, first, that the offender and the victim voluntarily attend the restorative conference. Second, that the restorative conference enables the offender and the victim to take on active responsibility. Third, that the reparatory tasks on which the parties agree should not be understood in terms of the intentional infliction of harm. These fictions, so I argue, are not merely a mistake, but instead serve an important function: the various parties need to believe that they adequately capture the reality of the restorative conference as they are more likely to acquiesce if they believe the fictions to be true. I conclude that the fictions are the driving force within the restorative endeavour.     

Sexual Offences in Vanuatu under the Light of Custom and Law: “An Avenue for Restorative Justice”

This paper will focus on the Republic of Vanuatu’s society and customs relevant to this topic. I will consider the laws made by the legislature to deal with sexual offences in Vanuatu and how they are being implemented or enforced. I will also discuss the different provisions under the law whereby accused persons have an option to actually compensate the victim of the offence and how it is being used in Vanuatu in relation to sexual offences. This paper will also look at how Vanuatu’s culture influences the prosecution or the sentencing of sexual offences or dealing with such crimes in the first place. This will reveal whether Vanuatu’s customary approaches to sexual offences actually support the state’s laws to punish such offenders and if a more fair and just process is needed where the voices of the offender as well as the victim are heard. Custom usually does not allow the victim to speak, and the victim’s parents and the elders of the community decide how the offender should be dealt with. Neither the formal court process nor the customary reconciliation process seem to take into account the wishes and interests of the victim and the offender. The flaws within the legal system and customary laws in addressing victims’ and offenders’ issues will be examined and an alternative process of restorative justice will be discussed.     

Where Do They Belong? Giving Victims a Place in the Criminal Justice Process

Historically, victims once had an active participatory role in the criminal justice process and were responsible for not only initiating but also for prosecuting offenders. In common law countries, victims were gradually sidelined and by the 20th century, their role was reduced to that of a witness to a crime against the state. The exclusion of victims from the criminal justice process is a major source of dissatisfaction for victims as many of them want to participate in the criminal justice process. This has fuelled initiatives with restorative justice that claim to more fully include victims than conventional criminal justice. This paper examines three different approaches found in the literature on how to let victims participate. One view is that victims should leave the criminal justice system and that criminal justice should be replaced by alternative, restorative justice schemes in which victims are granted full recognition and respect for their dignity. A second approach is to integrate restorative practices such as victim-offender mediation in the criminal justice process. The third approach is to integrate victim participation and respect (so-called restorative values) in the criminal justice system. These three approaches are discussed and compared with one another. The paper closes with recommendations for criminal law reform.     

Punishment and Beyond: Achieving Justice Through the Satisfaction of Multiple Goals

We investigated the hypothesis that people's need for punishment does not preclude a desire for restorative sanctions that address the repairing of the harm to victims and communities caused by wrongdoing. Study 1 showed that although people felt it was important to punish the offender to achieve justice, they viewed additional justice goals as equally necessary. Study 2 revealed that people viewed sanctions as differentially able to fulfill various justice goals. Study 3 showed that the target on which respondents focused—the offender, victim, or community—determined which sanctions they selected to achieve justice; and that people did tend, by default, to focus on punishing the offender when responding to crime. These findings, taken together, suggest that people view the satisfaction of multiple justice goals as an appropriate and just response to wrongdoing, which allows for a possible reconciliation between the "conflicting" goals of restorative and retributive justice.     

Community of care from a victim-perspective: a qualitative study

Even if there has been some theoretical debate on the role of what has been called the ‘community of care’ in restorative justice (RJ) there has not been much research on, or analysis of, the implications of the role of significant others in its practice. This lack of reflection is especially evident in the case of the victims’ community of care, despite findings that would indicate a systematic lack of participation of victim’s supporters in restorative practices. Through the qualitative analysis of 35 interviews with victims of crime who consented to attend mediation (direct and indirect), an attempt to describe and discuss the characteristics of victim’s communities of care that may become relevant for the practice of RJ is made. Results indicate that, despite a victims’ need for company or support, victims tend to disclose few details about the offense, its consequences and the mediation offered as a way to protect their loved ones or to avoid possible negative reactions from their communities. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are offered.     

JUVENILE OFFENDERS MEET THEIR VICTIMS

The process of allowing certain victims of crime to confront their juvenile offender in the presence of a trained mediator to both talkabout the event andnegotiate aplan for compensating the victim is developing in a growing number of communities throughout the United States. This article reports on the impact of the victim offender mediation program in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is based on interviews with 206 victims and juvenile offenders in Albuquerque, as well as interviews with court officials andprogram stas This program represenisa strong court and community partnership. victims and offenders whoparticipated in mediation indicated high levels of satisfaction with both the processand outcomes of mediation. Wctims who were involved in mediation, particularly, were considerably more likely to indicate satisfaction with the manner in which the juvenile justice system handled their case than were those victims who were referred to mediation but did nut participate or similar victims who were never even referred to the mediation program. Offenders who negotiated their restitution obligation with the victim were far more likely to actually complete restitution, when compared to offenders whose restitution was ordered by the court with no mediation program involvement.     

Proportionality in Sentencing and the Restorative Justice Paradigm: ‘Just Deserts’ for Victims and Defendants Alike?

The doctrine of proportionality seeks to limit arbitrary and capricious punishment in order to ensure that offenders are punished according to their ‘just desert’. In Australian sentencing law, proportionality goes some way toward achieving this ‘balanced’ approach by requiring a court to consider various and often competing interests in formulating a sentence commensurate with offence seriousness and offender culpability. Modification of sentencing law by the introduction of victim impact statements or the requirement that sentencing courts take explicit account of the harm done to the victim and community has generated debate, however, as to the extent to which offenders may be now subject to unjustified, harsher punishments. This article proposes that in order to overcome the controversy of the modification of offender and victim rights in sentencing, sentencing courts adhere to a doctrine of proportionality that is explicitly sensitive to the needs of victims and offenders in a model of restorative justice that focuses on the consequences of crime as against the individual, rather than the state. The extent to which proportionality, as the current constitutive principle of Australian sentencing law, may be modified to better encourage a dialogue between victim and offender is discussed.